18 comments:

Harper thinks Canada is far too liberal and wants to twist Canada into what he calls conservative. What really wants is to turn Canada into a Fascists country. Unfortunately hard times make people more willing to except temporary injustice. The problem is once justice and the freedom it brings is lots it not always possible to get back.

To insure that is the case Harper is staking the Senate http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/552604and Government agencies.http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/552606

I also notice the prorogue has given the Conservatives to make tax changes without passing a bill.http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/552646

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today that he will be recommending to Governor General Michaëlle Jean that Parliament be prorogued, thus ending the First Session of the 39th Parliament. Parliament will be recalled on October 16 to commence the Second Session with a Speech from the Throne."

Although I would like to see prorogation periods shorter, that prorogation was the normal and historical practice of ending a session, somewhere between one and two years and starting a new one.

Not that I do not think Harper needs to go and the GG's constitutional powers should be delegated to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who actually understands constitutional law and is independent.

Numerous Constitutional experts warned the GG before she met with Harper that if she granted a prorogue, she should only do so if conditions were established that would limit Harper's power to make judicial and senate appointments.

These conditions apparently were not set in place.

Why the GG didn't impose the conditions is the question that needs to be answered.

Canadians have not been informed as to the basis of the GG's decision.

Without reasons, how can her decision to prorogue set a precedent?

Why isn't anyone asking on what basis the decision was made and why were there no conditions or restrictions on the PM's powers imposed given that he clearly does not have the confidence of the Parliament?

In future we should appoint GGs who are up to the unlikely but serious crises that might occur. Unwilling to resign and give up her luxurious lifestyle, yet unable to stand up to the PM, our GG is not the constitutional safeguard she's supposed to be. Are there no other means to put the brakes on a PM who is running amok? Senate? Supreme court?

''In future WE should appoint GGs ...our GG is not the constitutional safeguard she's supposed to be.''

LOL, the PM appoints the GG, not the Liberals.That's the real issue here isn't it.YOUR GG, a Liberal from CBC, let you down.Now YOUR Senate will get 18 Conservatives.It's YOUR country, and YOUR entitlements....

It is sad for Conservatives that the current situation brings back the scorn of Brian Mulroney for the raft of Trudeau's appointments which killed John Turner..

"You had an option, sir. You could have said, 'I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada, and I am not going to ask Canadians to pay the price.' You had an option, sir--to say 'no'--and you chose to say 'yes' to the old attitudes and the old stories of the Liberal Party. That sir, if I may say respectfully, that is not good enough for Canadians."

..I'd rather take my chances with a leader that says, "I mean what I say." Canada will survive whatever appointments the Liberals make.. and, in reality, if the Liberals were so dim as to fill those appointments with their cronies, including Elizabeth May.. well, there will be a day of reckoning at the polls.

Twas ever thus. Not GG's fault. To have put conditions on Gov't would have indicated uncertainty about confidence of House which would have meant, logically, should have refused prorogation and waited to see results of confidence vote. But that would have implies, given news, that knew and approved of coalition. I was against prorogation, but entirely defensible decision. Was going to set precedent either way. Given Throne Speech, PM as chief advisor, etc., tougher to say no to prorogation than say yes. I think she should have refused but can't blame for saying yes. And having said yes, for reasons outlined, can't really place conditions. Wish she had. wish she hadn't prorogued. But, c'est la vie. Legitimate patronage (if one can say such a thing) doesn't bother me much - same everywhere, way of the world, and sure there are talented Cons for some positions. Best if done in as non-partisan way possible, based on qualifications, but democracy's logic implies patronage. Will always happen, question is how best to control it and ensure it doesn't do harm.

Well, I guess that she always can say no to the appointments until Harper shows that he has the confidence of the Parliament. This seems like the most sound path given Harper's obvious desparation play in asking for prorogation.

And please don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people who don't believe in the legitimacy of the GG office.

I am not calling on the abolishment of the monarchy and I am not challenging the legitimacy of our whole system just because the GG granted the prorogue.

I am simply saying that Canadians deserve to know why the GG granted the prorogue. We as a nation are no wiser than we were a week ago.

I think we as a nation are entitled to know why Her Excellency granted Dirty Steve Harper his early Christmas Present.

Maybe they had plans for an X-mas block party that would have been spoiled if Steve had to move out of 24 Sussex!